1920x1200 vs 1920x1080

[tiaza]

I've been really confused after looking in to this subject. Many people are claiming that 1920x1080(16:9) is wider/bigger horizontal view than 1920x1200(16:10). Is this correct?

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthre...3965450&page=4

I've read about some games use Hor+ which keeps the FOV the same and reduces horizontal field of view in exchange for the extra vertical 1200 pixels but I mean naturally on desktop.

The 16:9 aspect ratio offers no more width, just less screen real-estate. Period.

Basically I'd like the facts to try and make a decision vs 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 on 24" monitors, if I get same width but more height in some games (vert-?) i think 1920x1200 would be best.
Hope you can help me finally understand this.
Thanks

[Terbinator]

I went with 1080p to conform, basically. If i didn't use a 360/PS3 with my monitor i would of gone 16:10, personally.

[kag8]

i too went with 1080p as i could then use it on my ps3 as well without any scaling issues or annoying black bars...if you are going to use it exclusively for pc, then i suggest getting a 16:10 120HZ monitor

[MSIC]

Your diagram above is only correct in terms of ratio, however a clearer / more accurate diagram would have all of the sides of the rectangles touching, with only the height being different. admittedly it would be a less visually evident diagram then, since one is a whole subset of the other.

Anyway, 1920x1200 for a long time was viewed as a very good PC monitor resolution, and arguably is superior in every way to 1920x1080. The only possible exception being if you used it regularly for film watching, and that argument assumes the content will fully fill 1920x1080 (in my own experience i watch far too many diverse things that 80% of the time there are either black borders above still, or at the side). The point being here that 1920x1080 is "full HD" in TV terms... and this explains why PC monitors have 'lost' 120 pixels on the whole, because for companies who manufacture the screens its easier to mass produce for both PC moniors and TVs than the 2 separately.

So i'm afraid that computer monitors lost out

That all said, there is no such thing (and nor could there ever be) a 'correct' ratio, or resolution.
For further reading, http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...hic/index.html has a good explanation.

Finally, from a gaming point of view, for many years having 'widescreen' (as opposed to a 4:3 or 5:4 ratio monitor) was a very minor percentage of the gamers, and lots of games didnt support wide resolutions (leaving players either to just have black borders on the sides or stretch the screen or similar). I then discovered http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/ . It's a good site, still live, and offers lots of info about Horizonal or Vertical stretching, changing the Field Of View etc, and perhaps most valuably a list of games which are fully widescreen compatible. The only thing i cant comment on is whether game developers are coding for any resolutions that a gamer has, and display accordingly (which would make sense), or if they simply assume that "widescreen" means 1920x1080 and limit it to that.... dont know i'm afraid

In my opinion, if you have the choice and can reasonably afford it, get a 1920x1200 every time

[GheeTsar]

My advice - don't worry about it too much. Pick your monitor based on other factors such as panel type, connections, responsiveness (if gaming is top priority), colour accuracy (if photo/graphic work is important), etc.

[Singh400]

Errr diagram fail anyone?

Go for 1920x1200.

[oolon]

This diagram from Wikipedia illustrates different monitor sizes best in my mind. If you are really after FOV rather than detail reducing the vertical size more than just 120 pixels would be better. You can get some 17:9 (2k monitors) 2048x1080 if you want the best FOV in a single "standard" display size.

[GheeTsar]

Errr diagram fail anyone?

Yeah, it is a bit exagerated. For a 24" screen the 16:9 screen would only be 1.44cm wider and the 2.42cm shorter than a 16:10 (mixing imperial and metric measurements!).

[tiaza]

Yeah, it is a bit exagerated. For a 24" screen the 16:9 screen would only be 1.44cm wider and the 2.42cm shorter than a 16:10 (mixing imperial and metric measurements!).

Ah think I understand now I get it. I couldn't work out why you'd see more of games on the sides but forgot 24" measurement would be higher but not as long..
I think more FOV is more important on the sides on games but I do like to see higher up, like a crawler monster climbing down the wall and most games do seem to be hor+ so I do feel more inclined to go with 16:9 to my disappointment.
Thanks again for replies.

[oolon]

Of course if you can zoom out your game a fraction so the FOV is the same horizontally as a 1920x1080 your see more with the 1920x1200 as your see a bit more up and down. because the pixel count is the same horizontally you will have the same detail level. By default the person will be a little "bigger" on the 1920x1200 because of the narrowing field of view ... so pan out!

[SystemOAD]

My advice - don't worry about it too much. Pick your monitor based on other factors such as panel type, connections, responsiveness (if gaming is top priority), colour accuracy (if photo/graphic work is important), etc.

I would agree with that, if your buying your monitor for PC gaming its not just the size you need to think about!

You need a good fast monitor to make sure it can keep up with the rest of your rig IMO.

[IronWarrior]

Most monitors you buy these days have fast response rates, so it's not such a big deal anymore.

Resolution should come first, size second and everything else next.

[GheeTsar]

Resolution should come first, size second and everything else next.

Personally there's no way I would go for a poor quality 1920x1200 pannel over a high quality 1920x1080 pannel.

[Jay]

I use both and 1920 x 1200 is much better!

I will take a pic of them side by side later today.

[McPhee]

The rise of 1920x1080 and 16:9 in general is purely cost-cutting. There's far more demand for 1920x1080 panels. Along with the slightly smaller dimensions (typically 23.6" diagonal compared to 24") this makes them cheaper to produce. It's part of the reason why monitors of this size are now so cheap.

In terms of use, the extra 120 pixels on 1920x1200 does make a decent bit of difference to desktop work. The more vertical space the better. However, as said above, 16:9 gives a wider FoV in games. The advantage for video content is moot given most films are either 2.39:1 or 1.85:1, you'll still get black bars top and bottom.

[tiaza]

Annoyingly i'm still confused!
Is the diagram is representing the shape of monitor and physical real estate but on desktop/some games that don't lock the FOV you have the exact same lenth to view?
eg.both monitors next to each other on game looking at same place = you can see as far to the left and right on both but slightly higher more on top and bottom on the 16:10? as they are the same horizontal resolution so the pixels are just made abit smaller on the 16:10?
This is driving me nuts not being able to understand it!